About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
schools of thought on how to deal with israel. mark perry is a foreign policy analyst who remains close contact with the hamas leadership. >> abu mazen has gambled very explicitly and said very explicitly that there will be no violence against israel and he will negotiate in good faith with israel. the problem is that hasn't gotten him anywhere. hamas has a totally different approach and their approach is resistant. they believe israel will only come to the table when they feel pain. >> warner: a bring number of palestinians see justification for that belief. last november a week of palestinian rocket fire from gaza and israeli air strikes led to an egyptian-brokered cease-fire between hamas and israel. as part of that, some israeli restrictions on gaza were eased. the year before, hamas secured the release of a thousand prisoners from israeli jails in return for handing over gilad shalit, the israeli soldier it kidnapped in 2006. >> it has sent a clear message to the palestinian people if you abduct soldiers the they will be released but if you sign agreements about w us about releasin
degree was running its own foreign policy. one of the big things we're looking to understand about ping's government over the next year or two is whether he can bring the pla under his control. he's already been head of the military commission which is really the most powerful role there. it took hu jintao a few years before he got named to that post. >> rose: david sanger thank you as always. >> thank you, charlie. >> we look at politics the republican and democratic party. the republican national committee comes in the way of political conference where republican leaders met to discuss the future of their party. report contained an endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform and extensive discussion of social issues. the gop has struggled to define itself since the loss in the 2012 presidential election. joining me to help me understand this from washington al lent fr boomberg view andark halperin from "time" magazine. i'm pleased to have both of them back on this program. i begin with this al. as you know i've been in rome watching the new pope be selected. so i've been there ge
the timelines regarding iran? in covering the pentagon and foreign policy. elizabeth, you know we have a different u.s. officials have a different notion of when we reach that danger point. the testimony last week was that the ayatollah has still not made the political decision to proceed with nuclear weapons. there's not that same sense at all in israel. >> i feel like i've been talking about this for years. the different timelines. but yes, there's still a different timeline that the u.s., i think the last thing the president said was about a year, israel thinks it's sooner than that. the reality is that israel is going to be in a very difficult position to do a strike itself. we've been through that many times it doesn't have the same capabilities the united states does and the united states is it going to wait until the last possible minute there was a lot of fighting last fall as you remember, about the president not being strong enough, against on iran. that has died down. there's a new israeli government and it's a little bit more moderate. so we're still in the same place. >> a
by hillary lever vitt, professor of american foreign policy. she specialized in affairs at the state department during the clinton and bush administrations and joined by matt center for american progress. seems like i just spoke to you last night. tell us what this speech means. does this mean the administration is willing to put forth a serious effort towards brokering peace in the middle east and specifically between israelis and palestinians or is this a tremendous speech that doesn't have the substance necessary to carry forth? >> i think it is a speech that underscores obama's speech in rhetoric. unfortunately i don't think it was tremendous in substance. the key aspects what's really necessary for a two state solution, halt to settlements, that was completely dropped from obama's prior substance filled speeches. unfortunately this plan or idea isn't going anywhere. >> why did he drop it? didn't want to insult the israelis to their face? didn't want to challenge them that toughly? >> i think the whole trip was not to make peace in the middle east to make peace with congress at h
it all up, it's probably $2 trillion to $3 trillion of american costs, distorted american foreign policy. the idea that we took so much of our situation after the end of the cold war and we devoted it to iraq given everything else we could've, should've done. historians will scratch their head and say why did the united states get so distracted and distorted -- >> and stayed there after we knew there weren't weapons. >> and that's the big lesson we should draw from this in afghanistan. we've got to respect local realities. united states cannot go around the middle east and remake it in our liking. we've got to have a degree of humility about the limits of our influence. and you asked whether we learned the lessons. with vietnam, iraq and afghanistan, i hope we've learnlearn ed. >> and iraq and afghanistan. first of all, be far, far more skeptical than most of us were going in to iraq. also, no matter how far you are down the path, if it's the wrong path, turn around. and we should've done that. i want to read what you talked about the human cost. mike barnicle e-mailed me this last night
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)